Nope, this makes too much sense to be proper on this list. Bill
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:07 PM Subject: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) > Guys > It's not digital OR film. Like it's not train OR car OR ship OR busses.... > It's film AND CCD's. Nothing's odd about that. Each media has it's > advantages. Use the media that fits each situation and assignment the best. > Isn't that quite obvious? > Jens > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 27. juni 2003 19:52 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > tom wrote: > > > > > No, it won't. > > > > Have you actually done it ? > > I had my own darkroon for 4 years. I made thousands of prints. I've > done everything. > > Do you think I'm so stupid as to ditch an entire system for crappy > prints? > > > > > > You really should limit your comments to something you know about. > > > > See above. > > No, I think you need to take a breath. Do you shoot medium format > regularly? Do you shoot digital regularly? Have you made prints of > various sizes from both? Do you print both b/w and color? Have you > compared 35mm, 645, 67 and DSLR prints side by side? > > Have you actually even seen any competently made prints from a DSLR? > > Do you really think I'd switch from 645 to digital if the prints > sucked? Do you have any idea what a stickler I am? For 3 years I > printed EVERY b/w print that went out my door because I couldn't find > anyone who printed to my standards. > > You regularly make snide and derisive comments about anything having > to do with digital. Personally, I find your attitude annoying, and > your opinions ignorant. > > tv > > > > >
